Talk:Reliant class
If we must have this a-part from the Miranda class page could you please make it clear what the relationship is to the Miranda class, both in universe and in background. And some info linking here from the Miranda class page would probably be helpful too (currently there's a discontinuity note, rather than what you seem to be going for in reconciling both names, having Reliant as a sub-class of Miranda). --8of5 21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC) :Perhaps the page title could be changed to "Reliant subclass" or "Reliant subclass (Miranda-class)"?--Cicero 03:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC) ::Well I see you've already made a head start on that, however, the problem with that is that the was never called a subclass. For us to rename it so, we would be making assumptions, which are fine as notes on the page, but shouldn't define the names of articles. --The Doctor 06:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC) :::Not naming it makes as many assumptions. The vast majority of sources refer to the same ship as Miranda class, not Reliant class. The class needs either to be listed as a Miranda subclass, or needs to be marked as contradicting most sources.--Cicero 06:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC) I don’t think moving this to "Reliant subclass" is the solution, but Cicero has a point; the Anton class page, and the various Constitution variant classes use the term subclass on the pages, is that from the sources or us trying to make what is a discontinuity between FASA and the rest of the Trekverse work? I don't think renaming is the right way to do it, but we do already have the subclass terminology used on the site, that needs to be addressed. Should they all have separate pages? Should they all be on one page with a decent background section explaining the whole problem? Should we be referring to refit-Miranda class vessels from non-FASA sources as Reliant class? For the latter at least I say firmly no, as a whole host of other sources refer to them exclusively as Miranda class. --8of5 15:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC) :In situations like these concerning starship articles, I usually refer to , especially concerning FASA ships and their contradictions. --The Doctor 15:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC) I don't own any FASA books so anythign I know about it is second-hand info from articles and discussion on this site. So I too would defer to someone who has access to the original sources to do the actual edits. As I understand it, at the time, names such as Constitution, Miranda and Oberth class did not exist, so FASA went in there and created names for all the classes pre and post refit (and a few in between). However, the Trekverse has expanding significantly since then, and names like Constitution and Miranda started to be used, for the ships both before and after refit. We could attempt to rationalise that by dubbing the FASA names subclasses (or some other term with the same sort of meaning), which sort of works. Except those FASA names come from a source that doesn't recognise the names Constitution or Miranda, so they aren't meant to be subclasses of those over-arcing classes, as they just didn't exist. While similarly the modern names don’t recognise the FASA names, ships are just refitted or not refitted versions of Constitution, Miranda, etc class. What we really need, is a nice novelist to just come along and drop a little reference in mentioning the different names as subclasses, and it would all be so much easier! --8of5 15:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC) :Just as to the article name, no one's ever said the word "subclass" ever, so I don't want to rename something based on our observations. The truth of it is that the "Reliant class" (as named by FASA) is a "subclass" by our definition, but it is still a "class" by its licensed appearance naming. -- Captain MKB 18:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)